Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] Roadmap (was: Latest CVS commit)

[Mark K. <mar...@co...>]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 08:13, David Olofson wrote:
> > I think priorities could address my request. If the first X number
> > of voices for any gig were high priority, then the piano's 50th
> > note couldn't steal the violin's 1st note no matter how soft it
> > was.
> 
> That should work - and it has the advantage of not having to figure 
> out some "sensible" number of voices to reserve for each gig, MIDI 
> port, MIDI channel or whatever.

And gives the user some control. If this could be a per 'port' setting
in the LS GUI that would be pretty cool. (A 'port' in GSt is the place a
Gig file sits and responds to  specific MIDI channel.) If I could say my
piano will always get 10 voices, my violin will always get 3, etc., then
I can tune that song by song as necessary.

> 
> > I think that doing very much benchmarking before release samples
> > are included is only going to lead to doing it again. In the piano
> > ogg above, what you hear from LS today is only 10-15% of what GSt
> > is doing with the same MIDI file.
> 
> Those 85-90% doesn't add *that* much to the experience, though! ;-)
> 
Well, around library developers I think this statement verges on the
religious, so I won't respond about their value beyond this sentence.
;-)

That said, I think my point that by adding the release sample support
sooner vs. later in LS would allow us to improve the disk handling of
samples, better look at the overhead of the envelope generators (and all
the other stuff like LFO's, looping, etc.) and thus better benchmark how
well we're doing vs. the GSt solution. I can run GSt and LS on the same
machine with the same sample drives and same sound card. It's about as
apples to apples as we're going to get.

I do understand it will happen when it happens though. That's the way of
Linux development!